Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
22, 2015
and
the
seller,
the
object
of
the
sale,
and
the
consideration;
and
(2)
the
Ramirez
grabbed
him,
forcibly
took
the
key
of
his
Toyota
Lite
Ace
van,
delivery
of
the
thing
sold
and
its
payment.
What
is
material
is
the
proof
barged
into
the
vehicle,
and
conducted
a
search
without
warrant.
The
that
the
transaction
or
sale
actually
took
place,
coupled
with
the
police
seized
a
licensed
gunshot
but
Abelita
was
able
to
present
the
presentation
in
court
of
the
corpus
delicti
as
evidence.19
All
these
shotgun’s
license
to
the
police.
Ramirez
still
continued
searching
until
requisites
were
met
by
the
prosecution.
The
sole
defense
witness
Ara
could
only
proffer
the
weak
he
produced
a
.45
caliber
pistol
which
he
allegedly
found
inside
the
defenses
of
denial
and
alibi,
expressing
surprise
at
having
Talib
in
his
vehicle.
car
and
claimed
he
was
framed
and
that
the
shabu
confiscated
from
him
was
planted.
According
to
the
trial
court,
however,
Ara's
lying
on
the
Doria
and
Ramirez
arrested
Abelita
and
detained
him
without
witness
stand
"was
so
intense
as
he
tried
very
hard
in
vain
to
win
the
any
appropriate
charge
at
the
PNP
special
detention
cell.
Court's
sympathy."
Given
the
prosecution's
evidence,
the
presumption
of
regularity
in
the
performance
of
official
duties
has
not
been
Doria’s
version:
overturned
because
the
defense
failed
to
present
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
the
police
officers
did
not
properly
perform
their
duty
or
Doria
contends
that
his
office
received
a
telephone
call
from
that
they
were
inspired
by
an
improper
motive.
Rosa
Sia’s
relative
about
a
shooting
incident
in
Barangay
Nursery.
He
dispatched
a
team
headed
by
Ramirez
to
investigate
the
incident.
Ramirez
reported
that
a
certain
William
Sia
was
wounded
while
Abelita,
who
was
implicated
in
the
incident,
and
his
wife
just
left
the
2.
Abelita
v.
Doria
G.R.
No.
170672
place
of
the
incident.
Doria
looked
for
Abelita
and
when
he
found
August
14,
2009
Abelita,
he
informed
him
of
the
incident
report,
and
requested
that
Rule
113,
Section
5:
Lawful
warrantless
arrest
Abelita
go
with
him
to
the
police
headquarters
as
Abelita
was
reportedly
involved
in
the
incident.
Abelita
agreed
but
suddenly
sped
FACTS:
up
his
car
and
went
home.
The
police
chased
after
Abelita
and
caught
up
with
him
as
Abelita
was
about
to
run
to
his
house.
Judge
Felimon
Abelita
III
(Abelita)
filed
a
complaint
for
Damages
under
Art.
32
(4)
and
(9)
of
the
Civil
Code
against
P/Supt.
The
police
saw
a
gun
in
the
front
seat
of
the
vehicle
beside
the
German
B.
Doria
(Doria)
and
SPO3
Cesar
Ramirez
(Ramirez).
driver’s
seat
as
Abelita
opened
the
door.
They
also
saw
a
shotgun
at
the
back
of
the
driver’s
seat.
Thus,
they
confiscated
the
firearms
and
Abelita’s
version:
arrested
Abelita.
Doria
alleged
that
his
men
also
arrested
other
persons
who
were
identified
to
be
with
Abelita
during
the
shooting
incident.
Abelita
alleges
that
on
March
24,
1996
at
around
12nn,
he
and
his
wife
were
on
the
way
home
to
Bagumbayan,
Masbate
when
Doria
Abelita
was
charged
with
illegal
possession
of
firearms
and
and
Ramirez
with
10
other
unidentified
police
officers
requested
the
frustrated
murder.
An
administrative
case
was
also
filed
against
spouses
to
proceed
to
the
Provincial
PNP
Headquarters
at
Camp
Boni
Abelita.
Serrano,
Masbate.
Abelita
found
the
request
suspicious
and
told
Doria
and
Ramirez
that
he
would
proceed
to
the
PNP
after
he
had
brought
his
wife
home.
However,
when
Abelita
parked
his
car
in
front
of
his
house,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 2
Chapter 5 – Oct. 22, 2015
The
RTC
dismissed
Abelita’s
complaint
and
found
that
Abelita
A
reasonable
suspicion,
therefore,
must
be
founded
on
was
indeed
at
the
scene
of
the
shooting
incident
in
Barangay
Nursery.
It
probable
cause,
coupled
with
good
faith
on
the
part
of
the
peace
also
ruled
that
the
police
officers
who
conducted
the
search
were
of
the
officers
making
the
arrest.
belief
based
on
reasonable
grounds
that
Abelita
was
involved
in
the
incident
and
that
the
firearm
used
in
the
commission
of
the
offense
was
Moreover,
Section
5
of
Rule
113
does
not
require
the
arresting
in
Abelita’s
possession.
The
RTC
held
that
Abelita’s
warrantless
arrest
officers
to
personally
witness
the
commission
of
the
offense
with
their
and
the
warrantless
seizure
of
the
firearms
were
valid
and
legal,
and
own
eyes.
that
Abelita’s
defense
of
frame-‐up
was
weak
and
insufficient
to
In
this
case,
Doria
received
a
report
about
the
alleged
shooting
overthrow
the
positive
testimonies
of
the
police.
incident.
Ramirez
investigated
the
report
and
learned
from
witnesses
Abelita
filed
a
Motion
for
Reconsideration
which
was
naturally
that
Abelita
was
involved
in
the
incident.
They
were
able
to
track
down
denied;
thus,
this
case.
Abelita,
but
when
invited
to
the
police
headquarters
to
shed
light
on
the
incident,
Abelita
initially
agreed
then
sped
up
his
vehicle,
prompting
the
ISSUES:
police
authorities
to
give
chase.
Abelita’s
act
of
trying
to
get
away,
coupled
with
the
incident
report
which
they
investigated,
is
enough
to
1.
W/N
the
warrantless
arrest
and
warrantless
search
and
raise
a
reasonable
suspicion
on
the
part
of
the
police
authorities
seizure
were
illegal
under
Section
5
Rule
113
of
the
1985
Rules
as
to
the
existence
of
probable
cause.
on
Criminal
Procedure
2. W/N
Doria
and
Ramirez
are
civilly
liable
for
damages
under
Furthermore,
the
seizure
of
the
firearms
was
justified
under
Art.
32
(4)
and
(9)
of
the
CC
the
plain
view
doctrine.
HELD/RATIO:
Under
the
plain
view
doctrine,
objects
falling
in
the
plain
view
1. NO,
the
warrantless
arrest
and
the
warrantless
search
and
of
an
officer
who
has
a
right
to
be
in
the
position
to
have
that
view
are
seizure
were
lawful.
subject
to
seizure
and
may
be
presented
as
evidence.
The
plain
view
For
the
warrantless
arrest
under
Rule
113
to
be
valid,
two
doctrine
applies
when
the
following
requisites
concur:
(1)
the
law
requisites
must
concur:
(1)
the
offender
has
just
committed
an
offense;
enforcement
officer
in
search
of
the
evidence
has
a
prior
justification
and
(2)
the
arresting
peace
officer
or
has
personal
knowledge
of
facts
for
an
intrusion
or
is
in
a
position
from
which
he
can
view
a
particular
indicating
that
the
person
to
be
arrested
has
committed
it.
Personal
area;
(2)
the
discovery
of
the
evidence
in
plain
view
is
inadvertent;
and
knowledge
of
facts
must
be
based
on
probable
cause,
which
means
(3)
it
is
immediately
apparent
to
the
officer
that
the
item
he
observes
an
actual
belief
or
reasonable
grounds
of
suspicion.
The
grounds
may
be
evidence
of
a
crime,
contraband
or
otherwise
subject
to
seizure.
of
suspicion
are
reasonable
when,
in
the
absence
of
actual
belief
of
the
arresting
officers,
the
suspicion
that
the
person
to
be
arrested
In
this
case,
the
police
authorities
were
in
the
area
because
that
is
probably
guilty
of
committing
the
offense
is
based
on
actual
was
where
they
caught
up
with
Abelita
after
the
chase.
They
saw
the
facts,
i.e.,
supported
by
circumstances
sufficiently
strong
in
firearms
inside
the
vehicle
when
Abelita
opened
the
door.
Since
a
themselves
to
create
the
probable
cause
of
guilt
of
the
person
to
be
shooting
incident
just
took
place
and
it
was
reported
that
Abelita
was
arrested.
involved
in
the
incident,
it
was
apparent
to
the
police
officers
that
the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 3
Chapter 5 – Oct. 22, 2015
firearms
may
be
evidence
of
a
crime.
Hence,
they
were
justified
in
walked
along
the
hospital
gate
near
the
emergency
room
and
entered
seizing
the
firearms.
the
hospital.
Alonzo
examined
the
VHS
box
then
took
off
his
cap
to
signal
the
buy-‐bust
team.
The
buy-‐bust
team
immediately
proceeded
to
the
scene
and
arrested
Agojo.
The
team
also
recovered
P10T
of
the
buy-‐
bust
money,
a
.45
caliber
pistol
containing
7
bullets,
and
a
Panasonic
2. No,
Doria
and
Ramirez
are
not
civilly
liable.
cellphone
in
the
car.
Since
it
was
established
that
both
the
warrantless
arrest
and
the
warrantless
search
and
seizure
are
lawful,
Doria
and
Ramirez
were
The
examination
revealed
that
the
sachets
contained
methamphetamine
hydrochloride
with
a
total
weight
of
206.32
grams.
presumed
to
be
performing
their
duties
in
accordance
with
law.
Hence,
Doria
and
Ramirez
should
not
be
held
civilly
liable
for
their
actions.
Agojo
presented
a
different
version
of
facts,
in
support
of
the
defences
of
denial
and
frame
up.
He
maintained
that
he
was
at
the
hospital
at
Wherefore,
the
petition
is
denied
and
the
Quezon
City
RTC’s
decision
is
that
time
to
settle
the
bills
for
his
wife’s
hospitalisation,
when
he
was
affirmed.
arrested.
He
averred
that
he
was
made
to
board
the
police
vehicle
and
was
brought
to
the
police
headquarters
in
Batangas.
Prepared
by:
Aira
Marie
M.
Andal
The
RTC
found
Agojo
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
of
the
drug
charges
but
acquitted
him
from
the
charge
of
illegal
possession
of
firearms.
The
case
was
brought
on
automatic
review
before
the
3.
People
vs.
Agojo
Supreme
Court
since
he
was
sentenced
to
death
by
the
trial
court.
The
G.R.
No.
181318
Supreme
Court
on
the
other
hand,
transferred
the
case
to
the
appellate
April
16,
2009
court
for
intermediate
review.
The
appellate
court
affirmed
his
conviction
but
modified
the
sentence
to
reclusion
perpetua
in
view
of
FACTS:
the
law
subsequently
passed,
prohibiting
the
imposition
of
the
death
penalty.
Hence
this
petition.
Rodolfo
Alonzo,
a
civilian
informant,
reported
the
trug
trading
activities
of
one
German
Agojo
to
Police
Chief
Inspector
Ablang.
Alonzo
narrated
ISSUE:
Whether
the
Agogo’s
guilt
was
proven
beyond
reasonable
that
Agojo
agreed
to
sell
him
200
grams
of
shabby
for
P70T
on
50%
doubt.
cash
and
50%
credit
cases.
With
this
information,
Ablang
formed
a
team
to
conduct
a
buy-‐bust
operation.
HELD/RATIO:
On
the
day
of
the
buy-‐bust,
the
team
proceeded
to
Mercado
Hospital,
YES.
The
records
clearly
show
that
the
prosecution
proved
beyond
where
the
transaction
was
agreed
to
take
place.
Bland
entrusted
Alonzo
reasonable
doubt
that
Agojo
sold
shabby
to
the
poseur
buyer.
The
with
P71T
each
marked
“JUA”
and
instructed
him
to
remove
his
hat
to
testimony
of
Alonzo
on
the
sale
of
illegal
drugs
and
the
identification
of
signal
the
teak
that
the
sale
had
been
consummated.
Agojo
as
the
seller
is
clear
and
straightforward.
This
testimony
was
also
corroborated
by
the
members
of
the
buy-‐bust
team,
testifying
that
they
Agojo
arrived
at
around
11:30AM
aboard
a
white
Mitsubishi
Lancer
saw
Agojo
hand
Alonzo
the
VHS
tape
containing
the
shabby
despite
with
plate
number
DRW.
Agojo
then
approached
Alonzo
to
ask
if
the
only
partial
payment
of
the
shabu.
latter
had
the
money.
Alonzo
handed
Agojo
the
marked
money
and
Agojo
took
a
VHS
box
from
his
car
and
handed
it
to
Alonzo.
They
then
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 4
Chapter 5 – Oct. 22, 2015
The
Court
has
repeatedly
emphasised
that
the
defense
of
frame-‐up
is
viewed
with
disfavour,
since
the
defense
is
easily
concocted
and
is
a
common
ploy
of
the
accused.
Clear
and
convincing
evidence
of
frame-‐
up
must
be
shown
for
such
defense
to
be
given
merit.
Although
Agojo
was
not
arrested
being
in
flagrante
delicto,
the
arrest
was
still
validly
executed
pursuant
to
Section
5,
paragraph
(b)
of
Rule
113
of
the
Rules
of
Court
which
states
that
an
arrest
without
warrant
is
lawful
when
an
offence
has
in
fact
been
committed
and
the
peace
officer
has
knowledge
of
facts
indicating
that
the
person
to
be
arrested
has
committed
it.
Furthermore
it
was
ruled
that
the
inconsistencies
in
the
serial
numbers
of
the
marked
money,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
only
a
fraction
of
the
money
was
recovered
cannot
serve
to
exonerate
the
accused
because
its
absence
does
not
create
a
hiatus
in
the
evidence
provided
by
the
prosecution
to
adequately
prove
the
sale.
Moreover,
the
question
raised
as
to
the
fact
that
it
is
incredulous
for
a
person
selling
shabu
to
accept
payment
by
instalment
for
a
contraband
is
likewise
unavailing.
So
long
as
truth
is
corroborated
by
evidence,
the
Court
is
bound
by
the
facts.
The
appeal
is
dismissed.